If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Woodlands Tea Party members busted for voter fraud

This is an interesting story. So, Woodlands tea party activist and Montgomery Co. judge candidate, Adrian Heath http://countyjudge.countycitizen.com/, didn't like the way the Woodlands Road Utility District was handling its business (not enough transparency with its taxation). So, Heath and 9 other activists changed their address to a Residence Inn in the Woodlands Road Utility District, and the new Residence Inn residents promptly booted the sitting directors out of office in the May 8th election in a race where only 12 votes were cast. 10 votes against the incumbents from the newly registered Residence Inn residents, and 2 votes for the incumbents.

The ousted incumbents cried foul and contested the election results in court. The ten newly registered voters joined the suit as intervenors. http://www.scribd.com/doc/32712936/Intervenor-Petition The judge found that the 10 votes against the incumbents were invalid, and the 2 votes for the incumbents were valid, thus handing the election back to the incumbents.

Interestingly enough, the North Houston Tea Party boasts a meet and greet with voter fraud perp Adrian Heath on the same web site http://www.northhoustonteaparty.com/ that they boast their "True the Vote" campaign to "be a part of a ground-breaking effort to return integrity to the voting process and fight voter fraud!" Of course, they are talking about ACORN and Black Panther voter fraud and not the type of fraud that actually changed election results like one of their own accomplished.

Also, in an interesting twist, one of the voters, Thomas Curry, is the gentleman who just filed a series of frivolous ethics complaints against Austin City Council members in retaliation for their vote to boycott business with the state of Arizona. http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/c...ics-complaints

Morrison's retort to Curry in a sworn affidavit says, “I wish to bring to the attention of the Commission several systematic mistakes or misrepresentations by Mr. Curry, who either does not understand the relevant law, is knowingly filing frivolous inaccurate complaints in an effort to harass me and to mislead the Commission, or both.” Look at his ethics complaint and her response, and you can be the judge.

But is that really all you gleaned from this story? After beating your sanctimonious chest over the New Black Panther's silly attempt to intimidate a few voters, we have an example of real voter election fraud by real tea party activists that changed the results of a real election, and you want to talk about the ethics complaint.

honest question, why was it voter fraud? did they vote twice? Was it not a loophole to change their residences? Were they trying to follow the rules (presumably through a loophole like how Hillary Clinton became senator of NY) or were they trying to deceive by moving residences?

But didn't the Texas Sec'y of State indicate that was permitted before the 10 did it? And wasn't that loophole used previously in Fort Worth? And doesn't a taxing district failing to hold an election for 10 years draw any concern from you?

Sounds like the 10 are going to appeal. I wonder if they need a few bucks for their legal problems.

I'm not shocked at all that the quote is nowhere to be found in the article. Lately swam and you have had the need to spin articles found even in blatantly conservative publications. Making up quotes may be a new low, however.

But didn't the Texas Sec'y of State indicate that was permitted before the 10 did it? And wasn't that loophole used previously in Fort Worth? And doesn't a taxing district failing to hold an election for 10 years draw any concern from you?

Sounds like the 10 are going to appeal. I wonder if they need a few bucks for their legal problems.

Are you actually defending their actions? You think it's perfectly fine to falsify your address to change the outcome of an election?

I'm not shocked at all that the quote is nowhere to be found in the article. Lately swam and you have had the need to spin articles found even in blatantly conservative publications. Making up quotes may be a new low, however.

I am not shocked at all that you will point to is ANYTHING but the content of the message.

Throw in Swam, throw in the "conservative publication", bitch about quotes.

I can't edit, so you will excuse me for forgetting the <sic>

Does that make you feel better about the blatant racism that permeates this "post-racial" (NO <sic> HERE) Presidency?

Does it make you feel better about our leading law enforcement official picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce, many times based upon ethnicity?

I am not shocked at all that you will point to is ANYTHING but the content of the message.

Throw in Swam, throw in the "conservative publication", bitch about quotes.

I can't edit, so you will excuse me for forgetting the <sic>

Does that make you feel better about the blatant racism that permeates this "post-racial" (NO <sic> HERE) Presidency?

Does it make you feel better about our leading law enforcement official picking and choosing which laws he wants to enforce, many times based upon ethnicity?

"" have a purpose. They are for direct quotes. You know that, I hope. Quotations are not there for you to insert your interpretation of a person's thoughts. This isn't even a <sic> moment. It is an entirely fabricated quote, and it is attributable to you, not Holder.

"An applicant filling out a Texas voter registration form is not required to state that the residence will be his or her home forever, or for the next five years, or even the next year. The applicant is only required for administrative reasons to submit the application 30 days before the election in which the applicant wishes to vote. See TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 13.143 (Vernon 2003)."

That's loose as hell and probably should be tightened, but they appear to have believed that opinion was valid.

But I guess what I want to know is why you don't give a damn that a taxing authority hasn't held an election in 10 years, while creating $75,000,000 in debt?

It’s been a decade since voters went to the polls in the Woodlands Road Utility District. With no voters speaking up, after all, the board that has issued $75 million in public debt since forming in 1991 has been able to conduct its business independent of, well, anyone.

But not on May 8.

Using a caveat in Texas election law that allows a voter to register anywhere he or she decides to call home, a group of Woodlands residents have decided that their home is the Residence Inn there at 9333 Six Pines Drive, right in the middle of the road utility district. As such, they are supporting a trio of candidates to contest the three incumbents on the district’s board.

Of course, the dozen new voters don’t really live at the Residence Inn. But they can change their voting residency in a few computer clicks.

"I have doubts that they are qualified voters," said Mike Page, legal counsel and point man for the utility district. Page questioned whether the voters view the Marriott-label hotel as a place they will return to, citing the state's legal definition of residency: "one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence."

Adrian Heath, a part-time gadfly, read a Texas Watchdog story in February that described nine Tarrant County voters who listed the DEA headquarters at Alliance Airport as their home.

He had been curious about the operations and taxing authority of the road district for some time, wondering just who called the shots and how a resident could get on the district board. The five-member board meets monthly in open meetings. The district taxes only commercial businesses, at a rate of 47 cents per $100 property valuation. Heath feared that the debt issuance and the ability to tax might eventually trickle down to residents if a financial crisis were to strike the well-heeled planned community 35 miles north of Houston.

The district takes in 2,475 acres in the ever-growing 28,000-acre Woodlands, which includes an array of homes, office buildings and businesses nestled among fully-grown groves of trees and crisply manicured lawns.

So when Heath queried Page about the next election for the utility board, he was told there were no residents and therefore no election. And there hadn’t been one in the district since May 2000, when four voters cast ballots.

After a further review, though, Page found a voter and called an election, notifying Heath in an e-mail and posting a public notice on the building where the board meets. In the meantime, Heath did his own research and found nine voters registered to various commercial enterprises in the district, including a hospital, an insurance agency, a United Way office and yes, the Residence Inn.

Heath then took it upon himself to find some additional, like-minded Woodlands residents to register to that same Residence Inn.

Shortly after Heath's newly registered voters hit the rolls, the Montgomery County district attorney’s office fired off a letter to Heath, notifying him that someone had filed a complaint alleging voter fraud with regard to the residency claims he made.

Heath is soldiering on, and has created a Web site devoted to the utility district.

Thanks to state election law that is generous in its definition of home --- “Residency can be determined by the voter,” Secretary of State spokesman Randall Dillard says --- an election is on.

Sitting utility district board member Winton Davenport Jr. is defending his at-large seat and his $25-per-meeting paycheck.

“I’m not campaigning,” Davenport said. He took office three years ago to replace a board member who died. When election time rolled around, he said, there were no other candidates.

Another board member, G. David Bumgardner, who is not up for reelection, said the utility district is doing exactly what its patrons want – “I don’t recall any of the property owners ever showing up asking to run for a seat. They are happy with the way things go.”

Richard McDuffee wants to be part of change in the 24-voter district, for what it’s worth. He doesn’t like the taxing power the district has, claiming that it drives up prices of both goods and services.

The taxed businesses just pass on the costs to customers, he said.

Page, the attorney for the district, remains baffled by the new voters and their apparent anti-tax fervor.

“Some people think that because the word tax is involved, they should have some say over it, even though they aren’t paying that tax,” Page said.

Sounds like the taxing authority likes its little kingdom and don't want anyone messing with their power to take. Those fighting against that power are saying that the taxes are passed on to consumers through higher prices. Sounds like a fair dispute with some loose laws. It should run its way up the Courts.

1. The County Judge here is nigh-invincible. His office is in a building with his name on it, and his family name means that, unless you have a sex tape of him with male midget nazis in bin Laden outfits, don't bother (he got a DWI last year, and people laughed about it). He could just about pick his own man for any county-wide election (I'm pretty sure he was on board with the Sherrif's pick for our current D.A.).
2. According to everyone I've talked to about this, the tea-party people involved with this thing are all nuts (bear in mind everyone here is a Pub).
3. The idea that MoCo is run fiscally irresponsibly, and ripe for a no-tax revolt is laughable. Remember the "if we don't build it they won't come" Austin crowd, and the damage they did to the city's development during a period of rapid expansion? That would be the result if these kooks somehow cobbled together a majority (thankfully they seem to be on the fringe of the fringe around here).
4. If P.K. Reiter says the votes were fraudulent, they were fraudulent.

"An applicant filling out a Texas voter registration form is not required to state that the residence will be his or her home forever, or for the next five years, or even the next year. The applicant is only required for administrative reasons to submit the application 30 days before the election in which the applicant wishes to vote. See TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. § 13.143 (Vernon 2003)."

That's loose as hell and probably should be tightened, but they appear to have believed that opinion was valid.

But I guess what I want to know is why you don't give a damn that a taxing authority hasn't held an election in 10 years, while creating $75,000,000 in debt?

Sounds like the taxing authority likes its little kingdom and don't want anyone messing with their power to take. Those fighting against that power are saying that the taxes are passed on to consumers through higher prices. Sounds like a fair dispute with some loose laws. It should run its way up the Courts.

You didn't bold the most important part:

Page questioned whether the voters view the Marriott-label hotel as a place they will return to, citing the state's legal definition of residency: "one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence."

And there is a right way and a wrong way to address perceived objections to how a utility district is conducting its business. Fraudulent voting isn't one of them.

"" have a purpose. They are for direct quotes. You know that, I hope. Quotations are not there for you to insert your interpretation of a person's thoughts. This isn't even a <sic> moment. It is an entirely fabricated quote, and it is attributable to you, not Holder.

Of course it is a fabricated quote....it was lampooning our joke of a AG whose madate to his departement was just as the fabricated quote suggests.

The federal prosecutor that quit the DOJ has spoke at legnth about this, under oath, and emplored both his immediate supervisor AND Eric Holder to similarly answer to the racist culture that Holder has created in the DOJ as it pertains to the Voting Rights Act. Both declined, thus making a direct quote is impossibe because they conveniently, with the help of a media won't dare touch this, have not availed themselves to answer for it.

While you are tilting at misapplied quotation marks, your very poor choice in Presidents rears its ugly head again and further pushes this country toward complete partisanship and away from anyone taking this adminstration seriously about anything.

I am sure I misspelled something in there, you can let me know, I'd appreciate it.

Changing your user name to "grammar check sherrif" would also help as it is clear you really add nothing to a thread substantively.

Page questioned whether the voters view the Marriott-label hotel as a place they will return to, citing the state's legal definition of residency: "one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence."

And there is a right way and a wrong way to address perceived objections to how a utility district is conducting its business. Fraudulent voting isn't one of them.

I took the definition directly from the AG's opinion interpreting the law.

What is the "right way" to address a developer controlled board with taxing authority and "no voters" when asked whether they would hold an election once in 10 years? I am curious why you would/are defending the developer? Is that your line of business? I don't have much sympathy for them and their well worn practices.

And as an aside, we used to call these people "gadflies." I guess we call them tea partiers now.

I took the definition directly from the AG's opinion interpreting the law.

What is the "right way" to address a developer controlled board with taxing authority and "no voters" when asked whether they would hold an election once in 10 years? I am curious why you would are defending the developer? Is that your line of business? I don't have much sympathy for them and their well worn practices.

And as an aside, we used to call these people "gadflies." I guess we call them tea partiers now.

See softly's assessment above ... you know from someone who actually does business in Montgomery Co. as opposed to someone 1500 miles away in the suburbs of Denver. It's pretty clear your defense of their activities is desperate at best. Why is it necessary to ask about my line of business? That makes you look even more desperate if it was possible.

Heath calls himself an activist and a tea partier. From his web site: I am an amateur blogger who works with Americans For Prosperity as a Citizen Activist. I am a member of Montgomery County Eagle Forum, Conservative Coalition of Montgomery County and the North Houston Tea Party Patriots.

See softly's assessment above ... you know from someone who actually does business in Montgomery Co. as opposed to someone 1500 miles away in the suburbs of Denver. It's pretty clear your defense of their activities is desperate at best. Why is it necessary to ask about my line of business? That makes you look even more desperate if it was possible.

Heath calls himself an activist and a tea partier. From his web site: I am an amateur blogger who works with Americans For Prosperity as a Citizen Activist. I am a member of Montgomery County Eagle Forum, Conservative Coalition of Montgomery County and the North Houston Tea Party Patriots.

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Does it give you any pause that there is a board that has issued $75,000,000 worth of debt backed by taxing authority, which says "there are no voters" when asked why there hasn't been an election of board members in the last 10 years?

I assume that doesn't bother you given your posts. So I am curious why it doesn't bother you. One possibility is that you work for developers and this is a regular practice of developers. If so, I would understand your tolerance for such entities since this is the line of work you pursue and you want to protect it.

Perhaps you just like the "trains to run on time" and don't mind the power wielded by developers, as long as the roads are maintained. Again, that wouldn't make your lack of concern unusual in our day and age and would explain your passion for those upsetting the apple cart.

Perhaps it's something else.

So, please pardon the question and my intrusion, but I am curious how one reaches your passion for defending these types of taxing authorities.

don't want to speak for bongos but i think he's more about attacking the tea party as opposed to defending the developers. It would appear the activist went against the spirit of the law here, if not the letter. Though this does bring up the question of whether the other current voters are violating the law similarly. I can't say as I don't have in depth knowledge of the law or the details of the differences.

Washpark you appear to care more about the impetus for the activists actions than whether they were strictly against the law or not. whether this was perhaps a wrong being used to right another wrong, and whether that would be justified or not. I think this too is a good discussion to have regarding the matter.

I live in The Woodlands and have never heard of the Woodlands Road Utility. Are You telling me I could have put my name of the ballot and talked 15 neighbors into voting for me and I could have made it on the Board...? Dang....does it pay like Bell, CA...?

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot. Does it give you any pause that there is a board that has issued $75,000,000 worth of debt backed by taxing authority, which says "there are no voters" when asked why there hasn't been an election of board members in the last 10 years?

I assume that doesn't bother you given your posts. So I am curious why it doesn't bother you. One possibility is that you work for developers and this is a regular practice of developers. If so, I would understand your tolerance for such entities since this is the line of work you pursue and you want to protect it.

Perhaps you just like the "trains to run on time" and don't mind the power wielded by developers, as long as the roads are maintained. Again, that wouldn't make your lack of concern unusual in our day and age and would explain your passion for those upsetting the apple cart.

Perhaps it's something else.

So, please pardon the question and my intrusion, but I am curious how one reaches your passion for defending these types of taxing authorities.

You're being deliberately obtuse and set up a false dichotomy. You're well aware of what you're doing. It's not cute. I don't know why I bother engaging you anymore. It's insufferable.

What's to say? He sounds nutty. He got busted.
The weakness of the Tea Party is that it's truly a grassroots movement. I can hang a sign outside my door that says "Cedar Park Tea Party -- Come Molest 8-year-old Boys" and I'll be on MSNBC tonight.
None of that changes the true purpose of the Tea Party -- to reign in government spending.

What is the "right way" to address a developer controlled board with taxing authority and "no voters" when asked whether they would hold an election once in 10 years? I am curious why you would/are defending the developer? Is that your line of business? I don't have much sympathy for them and their well worn practices.

Meanwhile, your argument seems to be two wrongs make a right.

Not sure you should be getting on a moral high horse about this with that argument.

Page questioned whether the voters view the Marriott-label hotel as a place they will return to, citing the state's legal definition of residency: "one's home and fixed place of habitation to which one intends to return after any temporary absence."

WELL IF IT'S THAT THEN IT'S A HE SAID SHE SAID THING and if these 10 are paying for rooms at said motel and have personal $#@! there and are staying there, then this overturning of the election is total fascist bull$#@!. If the 10 are not doing this then it might be legit the overturning that is.

methinks that the other 2 voters in this election should be investigated to see if they too are honestly following the rules and if not they should be prosecuted and then shot.

BTW - Walt Disney World is set up the same kind of way as this corrupt criminal ridden utility district. WDW sits on the Reedy Creek Improvement District which comprises the cities of Lake Buena Vista and Bay Lake (they sold Celebration so it has no effect on WDW). The difference is that WDW has made sure that they don't have this kind of problem with rogue voters. They actually have cast members (employees) that have their permanent residence on property and they have enough of them that this kind of problem cannot happen. WDW is making a new subdivision in the middle of the city of Bay Lake which will have maybe a thousand people, I am not sure what WDW will to to protect themselves from these residents. maybe make a new city and utility district that is surrounded by WDW. who knows

You're being deliberately obtuse and set up a false dichotomy. You're well aware of what you're doing. It's not cute. I don't know why I bother engaging you anymore. It's insufferable.

Alright then. Is it what Viper says? You hold animus towards anyone who can be connected to the Tea Party (whatever that is) regardless of whether there might be some merit to the complaints of the person? Blind hatred, if you will?

Is there a Tea Party Derangement Syndrome that replaced Bush Derangement Syndrome (with the associated Obama Derangement Syndrome on the other side, that followed the Clinton Derangement Syndrome)? Again, no offense intended. I understand the narrative isn't one created in your mind, so I understand how one can reflexively hate the Tea Party/Obama/Bush/Clinton, . . . given the non-stop drumbeat of demonetization of people and groups in modern media.

In a way, it's the ugly face of my idealized marketplace of ideas; it's the marketplace of ideas with a "meth-dose" entry requirement. We all like to think of ourselves as wiser than those who engage in mindless conclusions, but we all have our prejudices and we are all impassioned by slick sloganeering that preys on our weaknesses.

If you took the Tea Party label off of these gadflies and they were given the label of "community activists" who saw a board with taxing authority that imperiled a residents of a fragile neighborhood designed to transition people from poverty, would your position flip?

Not sure you should be getting on a moral high horse about this with that argument.

If the SOS and AG's opinions of the law weren't so loose, I agree with your assessment.

The argument this gadfly makes is that this is a taxing authority that should have some oversight by residents because they might be stuck with the mess if the board screws up and cannot pay for the roads. In other words, their property is in peril if - say for instance - the board decided they were going to default on bond payments.

Frankly, I think the State was far too compliant with the developer in creating a taxing authority with only 2 people apparently living in the district and able to vote, if the judge's ruling is correct. Those 2 people apparently also have a special relationship with the board, according to the documents the gadfly posted. Perhaps the remedy lies with another look at the district by the State of Texas.

Alright then. Is it what Viper says? You hold animus towards anyone who can be connected to the Tea Party (whatever that is) regardless of whether there might be some merit to the complaints of the person? Blind hatred, if you will?

I didn't really mean it like that. He's attacking the wrongness of the technique used here and not looking into the motivations as you are. you both appear to be arguing for more weight to be given to one or the other.

Wash - was it wrong to use these techniques that are apparently against the rules, even in the pursuit of a good cause?

bongos - is this a good cause to bring to light, even if the actions were wrong?

bongos - is this a good cause to bring to light, even if the actions were wrong?

Maybe, but that's not what this thread is about. We've talked a lot about voter fraud - real and contrived - around here lately. I saw what I thought was a pretty clear example of it where it actually changed an election and decided to share it with everyone. The utility district has an odd electoral history, but it's ability to tax and issue debt is no different than other utility districts.

It won't surprise anybody that I want long jail time for any individual who participates in voter fraud, including fraudulently faking a residence to participate in an election.
While the state's rules in creating special taxing district are by virtually all accounts (including mine) far too liberal, wresting control of a district even with the goal of reform by falsely claiming a residence is an offense against the central mechanism of republican self-rule.

And washpark is just $#@!ing around. Nobody should pay it any attention.

Wash - was it wrong to use these techniques that are apparently against the rules, even in the pursuit of a good cause?

I know these types of gadflies. They find a loophole - here they found a group of people who claimed the inside of a DEA compound in Ft. Worth was their residence - and use the ambiguity in the law (as evidenced by the SOS and AG's opinion) to pursue an agenda (a board hasn't held an election in 10 years with $75,000,000 in debt attributable to the roads outside their homes, which may present a problem in the future).

Do the ends justify the means? They are facing felony investigations, so they put their asses on the line. The results of the election were overturned, but on appeal. They are taking up valuable judicial resources (as gadflies often do), but that is why we have the judiciary.

If they knew what they were doing was illegal (black letter law illegal) and they did it anyway - I would have a problem. If they stood outside the polling place with weapons in an effort to intimidate the two voters who apparently decide this election, I would have no problem with them spending a lot of time in prison.

There is a gray area in which they exercised their political speech - and arguably a right to vote or at the very least the right to protect their property through speech. So yes - I do find the ends justify the means in this case. The results were overturned and they are under investigation for felony offenses. Gadflies aren't sheep. Gadflies can disinfect cozy little governmental relationships. That's valuable in my opinion.

I would hope I wouldn't reflexively dismiss a gadfly because they were the Socialist Collective for the Communiszation of America if they were exposing rot, but I recognize the impulse.

If the SOS and AG's opinions of the law weren't so loose, I agree with your assessment.

The argument this gadfly makes is that this is a taxing authority that should have some oversight by residents because they might be stuck with the mess if the board screws up and cannot pay for the roads. In other words, their property is in peril if - say for instance - the board decided they were going to default on bond payments.

And my counterargument would be that if the actual residents cared enough they would organize and take care of any problems they saw themselves. They don't need outsider busybodies interfering in their $#@!, especially when at best what these busybodies did went against the spirit of the law. Isn't local control a big deal anymore?

And my counterargument would be that if the actual residents cared enough they would organize and take care of any problems they saw themselves. They don't need outsider busybodies interfering in their $#@!, especially when at best what these busybodies did went against the spirit of the law. Isn't local control a big deal anymore?

There are only two residents and the circumstances regarding their "residence" and the tax exemptions granted by the board for their "residence" was part of the problem identified by the gadflies.

From my reading of this, they weren't outsiders. There is a special district set up to maintain the roads in the Woodlands. The gadflies were residents of the Woodlands. Residents of the Woodlands can't vote in the election for the board that maintains the roads that run in front of their houses.

Commercial property is what "resides" in the district and, according to the board, when asked why there hasn't been an election in 10 years, there were no residents eligible to vote for the board. When pressured to hold an election the board identified two "residents" of the district, who had some connections with the board.

The gadflies were worried that the district had no oversight and they might become responsible for any default caused by the board (since the roads run in front of their houses).

So they forced an election, put up their own slate of candidates (from the Woodlands), and registered to vote - saying they resided at the Residence Inn, which they believed was consistent with Texas election law as expressed by the AG and the SOS.

There are only two residents and the circumstances regarding their "residence" and the tax exemptions granted by the board for their "residence" was part of the problem identified by the gadflies.

From my reading of this, they weren't outsiders. There is a special district set up to maintain the roads in the Woodlands. The gadflies were residents of the Woodlands. Residents of the Woodlands can't vote in the election for the board that maintains the roads that run in front of their houses.

Commercial property is what "resides" in the district and, according to the board, when asked why there hasn't been an election in 10 years, there were no residents eligible to vote for the board. When pressured to hold an election the board identified two "residents" of the district, who had some connections with the board.

The gadflies were worried that the district had no oversight and they might become responsible for any default caused by the board (since the roads run in front of their houses).

So they forced an election, put up their own slate of candidates (from the Woodlands), and registered to vote - saying they resided at the Residence Inn, which they believed was consistent with Texas election law as expressed by the AG and the SOS.

Thanks for that great explanation. Their actions make sense now. Could have had the manager at 7-11 claim the store as his residence for the same effect.

So they forced an election, put up their own slate of candidates (from the Woodlands), and registered to vote - saying they resided at the Residence Inn, which they believed was consistent with Texas election law as expressed by the AG and the SOS.

And to finish the story, Judge Reiter ruled that they voted fraudulently, and they are under a criminal investigation by the Montgomery County District Attorney.

There are only two residents and the circumstances regarding their "residence" and the tax exemptions granted by the board for their "residence" was part of the problem identified by the gadflies.

From my reading of this, they weren't outsiders. There is a special district set up to maintain the roads in the Woodlands. The gadflies were residents of the Woodlands. Residents of the Woodlands can't vote in the election for the board that maintains the roads that run in front of their houses.

Commercial property is what "resides" in the district and, according to the board, when asked why there hasn't been an election in 10 years, there were no residents eligible to vote for the board. When pressured to hold an election the board identified two "residents" of the district, who had some connections with the board.

The gadflies were worried that the district had no oversight and they might become responsible for any default caused by the board (since the roads run in front of their houses).

So they forced an election, put up their own slate of candidates (from the Woodlands), and registered to vote - saying they resided at the Residence Inn, which they believed was consistent with Texas election law as expressed by the AG and the SOS.

First, if the district blew up for some reason, they were worried they might be held responsible, since the district serviced the streets in front of their houses.

Second, they had a negative externality argument - the taxes were paid by the commercial entities and passed on to them via higher costs for patronizing those commercial entities. Since the commercial entities couldn't vote, they were essentially paying part of the taxes and they had an interest in preventing waste by the taxing district.

I can't tell if you're kidding. washpark gave a completely distorted recount of what likely happened.

Is the district comprised of the commercial property only or not? That is the key question. If the residential area is included they were wrong to do that but if the district really only has 2 residents that's $#@!ed up and I think their actions were justified and probably legal from what I understand of Texas Residency requirements.

First, if the district blew up for some reason, they were worried they might be held responsible, since the district serviced the streets in front of their houses.

Second, they had a negative externality argument - the taxes were paid by the commercial entities and passed on to them via higher costs for patronizing those commercial entities. Since the commercial entities couldn't vote, they were essentially paying part of the taxes and they had an interest in preventing waste by the taxing district.

So they should have gone through proper channels to resolve those concerns by going above the head of the district to get the boundaries re-drawn. Whether or not what they did is illegal, it was clearly fraud.

There are right ways and wrong ways to go about solving problems. I'm not a fan of defrauding others, even if that particular fraud isn't necessarily illegal.

But you can go on with your 2 wrongs make a right argument if you want.